It has become the new trend for turning down jobseekers and is something even I myself have been told in the past – you haven’t got the job because you are overqualified. Employers will have their reasons for such a peculiar statement; perhaps they can’t see themselves working with you as your personalities could clash, they are scared you are too ambitious and might overthrow their position after a few months in the job or have decided they simply don’t like the look of you, so they come out with the unimaginative, mind-numbing overqualified line. Examine the phrase carefully though, and it is obvious that it is impossible to be overqualified.
Yes, you can be underqualified for a job; you can not have enough academic qualifications proving your caliber for the role or are perhaps too inexperienced for a certain position but to be overqualified? When was the last time somebody won the lottery, only to find they couldn’t have the millions they had just won because they already have a thousands in their saving account – they are overqualified to receive the money? Is Bradley Wiggins ever told that he can’t buy a train ticket because, as a top cyclist, he is overqualified to be travelling on public transport? When was the last time David Beckham took his family out to Burger King for dinner because a meal at Ramsay’s would be far too tasty for them – after all, Gordon Ramsay is overqualified to cook dinner for the Beckhams!
The answer to all of them? Never. So why is it employers think that saying you are too qualified for a job is a sufficient excuse not to give you one?
Does a company not want the best candidate to be given the role? Would they rather hand it to the least impressive candidate? Unlikely. Do they simply not want to progress with someone overqualified on their team? Unlikely. So why has it become a term used to deflect people away from jobs? A candidate knows the level of a job they are applying for – clearly they are happy to work at level hence the initial application. Because of a tight employment market with millions of out-of-work executives, candidates often pursue job openings beneath their norm. This is nothing new – jobs are hard to find at the moment so if you have a wealth of skills and experience, you should fit into any company that suits your trade.
The truth is, not only is hearing you’re overqualified a baffling proposition, but it devalues many years of a candidate’s life. All that time they spent studying for their qualifications or gaining experience has amounted for nothing because they are now too qualified to do a job. Perhaps they should have spent their days in education making paper airplanes and throwing them round the playground instead? Maybe then they would be able to secure a job?
The truth is, you can’t be overqualified but such a term is an easy way of deflecting a candidate away from the real reason that they have not been offered a job. You do not fit with the company’s image and tone, they are wary of your ambition, they don’t like you personally or perhaps you don’t fill new government rules that state you have to hire at least one person with only one hand and four eyes to be dubbed a fair, equal employer – whichever excuse they have, overqualified just doesn’t cut it. In fact, you have to ask yourself why you are even reading this blog? You’ve learned the alphabet haven’t you? Then move on, you’re far too qualified to be reading this!
This is a repost from Jared Jargon (LINK: http://www.jadedjargon.co.uk/overqualified/ (http://www NULL.jadedjargon NULL.co NULL.uk/overqualified/)). With all the people unemployed or under employed, I think this post is very appropriate for the times. Thank you goes out to John Edden (Friend of Tech Geek and More) for allowing the repost.
(http://www
